"Estonia is also a living proof that economic disasters do not have to lead to enormous budget deficits. Disaster is the correct word, as the economy of this tiny Baltic nation has contracted by some 15 percent in 2009 with 2010 not being much better either. But still its government managed to keep the budget deficit at just a tad over 1 percent of its GDP. A remarkable achievement indeed if there ever was one."
"Following the entry into force of a new EU treaty, the content of this page is under revision."That new treaty, the Treaty of Lisbon, now serves as the constitutional basis of the European Union and its institutions:
"The Constitution changes the name of the Court of Justice. In the future, the term "Court of Justice of the European Union" will officially designate the two levels of jurisdiction taken together. The supreme body is now called the "Court of Justice" while the Court of First Instance of the European Communities is renamed "General Court". Article I-29 states that the Court of Justice of the European Union includes "the European Court of Justice, the General Court and specialised courts"."As written at the Wikipedia on the European Court of Justice:
"Following the entrance into force of the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009, the ECJ's official name was changed from the "Court of Justice of the European Communities" to the "Court of Justice" although in English it is still most common to refer to the Court as the European Court of Justice. The Court of First Instance was renamed as the "General Court", and the term "Court of Justice of the European Union" will officially designate the two courts, as along with its specialised tribunals, taken together."Regarding the General Court (European Union), the Wikipedia writes:
"The General Court (EGC) is a jurisdictional instance of the Court of Justice of the European Union. From its inception on 1 January 1989 to 30 November 2009, it was known as the Court of First Instance (CFI).See in this general regard Struan Robertson at OUT-LAW.COM in How often does the ECJ follow Advocates General? Or should that be CJEU?
The General Court hears disputes (such as disputes brought by those refused a trademark by OHIM, the EU Trade Mark and designs registry). Appeals are sent to the European Court of Justice. The General Court is an independent Court attached to the European Court of Justice.
The creation of the General Court instituted a judicial system based on two levels of jurisdiction: all cases heard at first instance by the General Court may be subject to a right of appeal to the Court of Justice on points of law only....
The General Court (previously known as "the Court of First Instance") is composed of 27 judges, at least one from each Member State, plus a registrar. The Judges are appointed for a renewable term of six years by common accord of the governments of the Member States.
The Members of the General Court elect their President and the Presidents of the Chambers of five Judges from among their number for a renewable period of three years.
There are no permanent Advocates General attached to the General Court (unlike the European Court of Justice which has 8 Advocates General). However, the task of an Advocate General may be performed in a limited number of cases by a Judge nominated to do so. In practice this has been done only very occasionally."
"The European Union Civil Service Tribunal is a specialised tribunal within the Court of Justice of the European Union. It was established on 2 December 2005.We reproduce the following text from the EU website on the Treaty of Lisbon:
The Treaty of Nice provides for the creation of judicial panels in certain specific areas. This provision is later amended and codified in Article 257 (‘specialised courts’) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union by the Treaty of Lisbon:[1]
"The European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, may establish specialised courts attached to the General Court to hear and determine at first instance certain classes of action or proceeding brought in specific areas. The European Parliament and the Council shall act by means of regulations either on a proposal from the Commission after consultation of the Court of Justice or at the request of the Court of Justice after consultation of the Commission. [...]"The Council of the European Union on 2 November 2004, adopted on that basis a decision establishing the European Union Civil Service Tribunal.[2] The new specialised court, composed of seven judges, is called upon to adjudicate in disputes between the European Union and its civil service, a jurisdiction until 2005 was exercised by the General Court. Its decisions will be subject to appeal on questions of law only to the General Court and, in exceptional cases, to review by the European Court of Justice.
"The Treaty of Lisbon amends the EU's two core treaties, the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community. The latter is renamed the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. In addition, several Protocols and Declarations are attached to the Treaty.
The Treaty of Lisbon
Order your printed copy of the Treaty of Lisbon or download the PDF version of the text
A consolidated text of the two core Treaties, integrating the modifications which the Treaty of Lisbon lists in its articles, is also available.
Consolidated versions of the Treaties as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon
Order your printed copy or download the PDF version of the consolidated text"
"The Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community was signed in the Portuguese capital on 13 December 2007 by the representatives of the twenty-seven Member States. It entered into force on 1 December 2009, after being ratified by all the Member States.
The Treaty on European Union includes a provision for the amendment of the Treaties. Article 48 says that any Member State, the European Parliament or the Commission can submit proposals for the amendment of the Treaties to the Council. The Council forwards any such proposals to the European Council, and the national Parliaments are notified. If the European Council agrees to examine the proposed amendments, its President convenes a Convention composed of representatives of the national Parliaments, the Heads of State or Government of the Member States, the European Parliament and the Commission. The Convention examines the proposals for amendment and adopts by consensus a recommendation to an Intergovernmental Conference (IGC), which is convened by the President of the Council. Alternatively and subject to the consent of the European Parliament, the European Council can also decide by a simple majority not to convene a Convention if a Convention is not justified by the extent of the proposed amendments, in which case it is the European Council itself that defines the terms of reference of an IGC, which is then convened by the President of the Council. In any case, an IGC composed of all the Member States is convened (whether preceded by a Convention or not) and any amendment to the Treaties must be ratified by all the Member States in accordance with their own constitutional requirements.
The Lisbon Treaty is the latest of the Treaties which, to date, have amended the Treaties on the basis of which the Communities and the European Union were founded, such as the Single European Act (1986), the Treaty on European Union (Maastricht Treaty) (1992), the Amsterdam Treaty (1997) and the Treaty of Nice (2001)."
"EU justice ministers approved a law today that ensures translation and interpretation rights in criminal proceedings, following backing from the European Parliament earlier this year. The law guarantees the right of suspects to obtain interpretation in their own language throughout criminal proceedings in all courts in the EU, including when receiving legal advice. 'This is an important step towards better and stronger justice in Europe,' said Vice-President Viviane Reding, calling on lawmakers to accelerate their work on the Commission’s second measure, the letter of rights, which was proposed in July."See also Catherine Heard and Daniel Mansell at EUobserver in [Comment] EU starting to wake up to lacking defence rights who discuss the background of issues leading to this law, starting with:
"How do 27 countries, all with their own distinct legal systems, juggle the competing demands of combating cross-border crime while safeguarding the free movement and other fundamental rights of those on their territory? This is the question the EU has been attempting to answer for the last ten years."See the respective Press Release Fair trial rights: EU Justice Ministers approve law ensuring translation and interpretation rights in criminal proceedings which is abstracted as follows:
"European Union Justice Ministers approved a law that ensures translation and interpretation rights in criminal proceedings. The European Commission and the European Parliament backed the law earlier this year (IP/10/746). It is the first ever EU measure setting common minimum standards for the rights of the defence in criminal matters. The law guarantees the right of suspects to obtain interpretation throughout criminal proceedings, including when receiving legal advice, in their own language in all courts in the EU. This is a long overdue first measure to ensure a fair trial for everyone throughout the entire EU. The law is the first of a series of fair trial measures to set common EU standards in criminal cases. EU Member States now have three years to put the measure into their national laws."See the Justice and Home Affairs Council Memo Justice and Home Affairs Council: 7-8 October 2010 in Luxembourg which contained inter alia the following text in discussing how and what needs to be done to ensure fair trial rights in the EU:
"1. Ensuring fair trial rights in the EU
Procedural safeguards represent a top priority in the justice area for the next five years. Minimum standards for the rights of defendants in criminal proceedings are indispensable to promote real mutual trust between citizens and the judicial authorities of different Member States, without which mutual recognition may never work properly.
What is expected at this Council? The right to interpretation and translation is expected to enter into force less than a year after first being proposed. The European Parliament backed the Directive in June. (IP/10/746)
The Council is expected to formally adopt legislation to help people exercise their fair trial rights anywhere in the EU when they cannot understand the language of the case.
Commission position: The Commission welcomes the adoption of the Directive, the first step in a series of measures to set common EU standards in criminal cases. The law guarantees the right of suspects to be informed about evidence used and receive legal advice in their own language in criminal proceedings in all courts in the EU. The Commission is keen to ensure that common minimum standards exist in all EU Member States for defendants. These standards should be fully compliant with the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights.
Meanwhile, the Commission will present its proposal for the right to information in criminal proceedings, which was proposed in July (IP/10/989). The proposal, if adopted by the European Parliament and EU Ministers of Justice, will help to avoid miscarriages of justice and reduce the number of appeals. Authorities prosecuting the case will have to ensure that suspects are given information about their rights. When someone is arrested, they will be given this information in writing – in a Letter of Rights – drafted in simple, everyday language. It will be provided to the suspect upon arrest in all cases, whether he asks for it or not, and translated if necessary.
Background: The Commission has been committed to common EU standards in relation to criminal proceedings for many years and has been working on EU legislation with a step-by-step approach. These measures will allow the Commission to develop a truly common and ambitious EU framework on the level of protection and fair trial rights."
"1. On a proper interpretation of Article 49 EC, an operator wishing to offer via the internet bets on sporting competitions in a Member State other than the one in which it is established does not cease to fall within the scope of the said provision solely because that operator does not have an authorisation permitting it to offer such bets to persons within the territory of the Member State in which it is established, but holds only an authorisation to offer those services to persons located outside that territory.
– that other types of games of chance may be exploited by private operators holding an authorisation; and
– that in relation to other games of chance which do not fall within the said monopoly and which, moreover, pose a higher risk of addiction than the games which are subject to that monopoly, the competent authorities pursue policies of expanding supply, of such a nature as to develop and stimulate gaming activities, in particular with a view to maximising revenue derived from the latter;
that national court may legitimately be led to consider that such a monopoly is not suitable for ensuring the achievement of the objective for which it was established by contributing to reducing the opportunities for gambling and to limiting activities within that area in a consistent and systematic manner.
The fact that the games of chance subject to the said monopoly fall within the competence of the regional authorities, whereas those other types of games of chance fall within the competence of the federal authorities, is irrelevant in that respect.
3. On a proper interpretation of Article 49 EC, where a system of prior administrative authorisation is established in a Member State as regards the supply of certain types of gambling, such a system, which derogates from the freedom to provide services guaranteed by Article 49 EC, is capable of satisfying the requirements of that latter provision only if it is based on criteria which are objective, non‑discriminatory and known in advance, in such a way as to circumscribe the exercise of the national authorities’ discretion so that it is not used arbitrarily. Furthermore, any person affected by a restrictive measure based on such a derogation must have an effective judicial remedy available to them.
This is a potentially important ruling for people who were accustomed to buying an online lottery ticket every now and then via private operators, but recently -- through a monopolistic federal German law -- were forced to walk down to the corner drugstore and buy a government-monopolized lottery ticket, because an online purchase from private operators was forbidden.4. On a proper interpretation of Article 49 EC, national legislation prohibiting the organisation and intermediation of games of chance on the internet for the purposes of preventing the squandering of money on gambling, combating addiction to the latter and protecting young persons may, in principle, be regarded as suitable for pursuing such legitimate objectives, even if the offer of such games remains authorised through more traditional channels. The fact that such a prohibition is accompanied by a transitional measure such as that at issue in the main proceedings is not capable of depriving the said prohibition of that suitability."
"The freedom of establishment, set out in Article 49 (ex Article 43 TEC) of the Treaty and the freedom to provide cross border services, set out in Article 56 (ex Article 49 TEC), are two of the “fundamental freedoms” which are central to the effective functioning of the EU Internal Market.
These provisions have direct effect. This means, in practice, that Member States must modify national laws that restrict freedom of establishment, or the freedom to provide services, and are therefore incompatible with these principles. Member States may only maintain such restrictions in specific circumstances where these are justified by overriding reasons of general interest, for instance on grounds of public policy, public security or public health; and where they are proportionate.
Under the Treaties the Commission is responsible for ensuring that Community law, including Articles 49 and 56, is correctly applied. As the guardian of the Treaty, the Commission has the option of commencing infringement proceedings against a Member State which they believe to be incompatible with Community law.
The recently adopted Services Directive aims to create a legal framework for ensuring that both service providers and recipients benefit more easily from the fundamental freedoms guaranteed in Articles 49 and 56 of the Treaty. The directive complements existing Community instruments and its provisions are, to a large extent, based upon the case law of the European Court of Justice...."The European Court of Justice in its holding has now essentially said that Germany can not justify its online betting prohibition by the excuse that it is protecting its population from the evils of gambling, while at the same time it is permitting other kinds of gambling and is itself profiting from that gambling and is actively propagating it for its own benefit, excluding similar private services to be offered in EU Member states.
"[Abstract ]Implementing the ambitious Digital Agenda for Europe unveiled today by the European Commission would contribute significantly to the EU's economic growth and spread the benefits of the digital era to all sections of society. Half of European productivity growth over the past 15 years was already driven by information and communications technologies (see IP/10/571) and this trend is likely to accelerate. The Agenda outlines seven priority areas for action: creating a digital Single Market, greater interoperability, boosting internet trust and security, much faster internet access, more investment in research and development, enhancing digital literacy skills and inclusion, and applying information and communications technologies to address challenges facing society like climate change and the ageing population. Examples of benefits include easier electronic payments and invoicing, rapid deployment of telemedicine and energy efficient lighting. In these seven areas, the Digital Agenda foresees some 100 follow-up actions, of which 31 would be legislative. The Digital Agenda is the first of seven flagship initiatives under the Europe 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth (see IP/10/225).Read the full press release here.
"We must put the interests of Europe's citizens and businesses at the forefront of the digital revolution and so maximise the potential of Information and Communications Technologies (ICTs) to advance job creation, sustainability and social inclusion", said Commission Vice-President for the Digital Agenda Neelie Kroes. "The ambitious strategy set out today shows clearly where we need to focus our efforts in the years to come. To fully realise the potential of Europe's digital future we need the full commitment of Member States, the ICT sector and other vital economic players.""
"The Court confirms that the liability of air carriers for loss of baggage is limited to €1134.71Read the full press release here.
That limit is absolute and includes both material and non-material damage
Under European Union law1, the liability of a Community air carrier in respect of passengers and their baggage is governed by the Montreal Convention2. Thus, that convention provides that the liability of a carrier in the case of destruction, loss, damage or delay of baggage is limited to the sum of 1000 Special Drawing Rights (SDR) for each passenger (a sum equivalent to approximately €1134.71)3, unless a passenger has made, at the time when the checked baggage was handed over to the carrier, a special declaration of interest in delivery at destination and has paid a supplementary sum if the case so requires. In that case, as a rule a carrier is liable to pay a sum not exceeding the declared sum."
...
__________
1 Council Regulation (EC) No 2027/97 of 9 October 1997 on air carrier liability in respect of the carriage of passengers and their baggage by air (OJ 1997 L 285, p.1), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 889/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 May 2002 (OJ 2002 L 140, p. 2).
2 Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, concluded in Montreal on 28 May 1999, signed by the European Community on 9 December 1999 and approved on its behalf by Council Decision 2001/539/EC of 5 April 2001 (OJ 2001 L 194, p. 39).
3 The Special Drawing Rights in the Montreal Convention are deemed to refer to the Special Drawing Right as defined by the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Therefore, those sums are to be converted into national currencies. The amount of €1134.71 corresponds to 1000 SDR as at 21 April 2010.
"A long-awaited draft of a Congressional bill would push American privacy legislation closer to the strict rules that the European Union uses, and would extend privacy protections both on the Internet and offline."Need we say that EU privacy law is years ahead of the USA? Whatever legislation the USA adopts, it is bound to be too weak by European standards.
"Rick Boucher, D-Va., and Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., released a draft Tuesday of a privacy bill aimed at defining broad new regulations for the data collection practices of online advertising. The bill would require sites to offer easier methods of letting users prevent their behavior from being tracked online, warn users about data collection with a symbol on Web pages and require sites to render anonymous any data they collect after 18 months."We do not understand why it is so difficult in the U.S. to comprehend that many people and companies in the United States are running roughshod in the Internet over the privacy rights of users and that stricter laws are inevitable, sooner -- or after much damage -- later. Stomping on privacy rights under the argument that it is essential for advertising is nonsense -- it is only essential so that the greedy among us can make even more money than they already do.
| Shaded cells indicate IMF staff estimates | ||||||
Country (State) | Subject Descriptor (GDP per capita 2009, current prices) | 2009 U.S. $$ | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Luxembourg - EU (world's #1 - via banking), Liechtenstein, not ranked by the IMF, surely has a higher GDP | GDP per capita | 104,512 | ||||
| Norway - EFTA, EEA (oil) | GDP per capita | 79,085 | ||||
| Qatar (oil) | GDP per capita | 68,872 | ||||
| Switzerland - EFTA (via banking) | GDP per capita | 67,560 | ||||
| Denmark - EU (world's best income distribution & world's happiest people) | GDP per capita | 56,115 | ||||
| Ireland - EU | GDP per capita | 51,356 | ||||
| Netherlands - EU | GDP per capita | 48,223 | ||||
| United Arab Emirates (oil) | GDP per capita | 46,857 | ||||
| United States | GDP per capita | 46,381 | ||||
| Austria - EU | GDP per capita | 45,989 | ||||
| Australia | GDP per capita | 45,587 | ||||
| Finland - EU | GDP per capita | 44,492 | ||||
| Sweden - EU | GDP per capita | 43,986 | ||||
| Belgium - EU | GDP per capita | 43,533 | ||||
| France - EU | GDP per capita | 42,747 | ||||
| Germany - EU | GDP per capita | 40,875 | ||||
| Japan | GDP per capita | 39,731 | ||||
| Canada | GDP per capita | 39,669 | ||||
| Iceland - EFTA, EEA | GDP per capita | 37,977 | ||||
| Singapore | GDP per capita | 37,293 | ||||
| Italy - EU | GDP per capita | 35,435 | ||||
| United Kingdom - EU | GDP per capita | 35,334 | ||||
| Spain - EU | GDP per capita | 31,946 | ||||
| Hong Kong SAR | GDP per capita | 29,826 | ||||
| Greece - EU | GDP per capita | 29,635 | ||||
| Cyprus - EU | GDP per capita | 29,620 | ||||
| Slovenia - EU | GDP per capita | 24,417 | ||||
| New Zealand | GDP per capita | 27,259 | ||||
| Israel | GDP per capita | 26,797 | ||||
| Brunei Darussalam | GDP per capita | 26,325 | ||||
| The Bahamas | GDP per capita | 21,529 | ||||
| Portugal - EU | GDP per capita | 21,408 | ||||
| Malta - EU | GDP per capita | 19,111 | ||||
| Czech Republic - EU | GDP per capita | 18,557 | ||||
| South Korea | GDP per capita | 17,074 | ||||
| Taiwan | GDP per capita | 16,392 | ||||
| Slovak Republic - EU | GDP per capita | 16,282 | ||||
| Saudi Arabia | GDP per capita | 14,486 | ||||
| Estonia - EU | GDP per capita | 14,267 | ||||
| Croatia | GDP per capita | 14,243 | ||||
| Hungary - EU | GDP per capita | 12,927 | ||||
| Latvia - EU | GDP per capita | 11,607 | ||||
| Poland - EU | GDP per capita | 11,288 | ||||
| Lithuania - EU | GDP per capita | 11,172 | ||||
| Turkey | GDP per capita | 8,723 | ||||
| Russia | GDP per capita | 8,694 | ||||
| Brazil | GDP per capita | 8,220 | ||||
| Mexico | GDP per capita | 8,135 | ||||
| Romania - EU | GDP per capita | 7,542 | ||||
| Malaysia | GDP per capita | 6,897 | ||||
| Bulgaria - EU | GDP per capita | 6,223 | ||||
| South Africa | GDP per capita | 5,824 | ||||
| Serbia | GDP per capita | 5,809 | ||||
| Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia | GDP per capita | 4,482 | ||||
| Iran | GDP per capita | 4,460 | ||||
| Bosnia and Herzegovina | GDP per capita | 4,279 | ||||
| Thailand | GDP per capita | 3,940 | ||||
| Albania | GDP per capita | 3,825 | ||||
| China | GDP per capita | 3,678 | ||||
| Syria | GDP per capita | 2,579 | ||||
| Egypt | GDP per capita | 2,450 | ||||
| Indonesia | GDP per capita | 2,329 | ||||
| Iraq | GDP per capita | 2,108 | ||||
| Philippines | GDP per capita | 1,746 | ||||
| Vietnam | GDP per capita | 1,060 | ||||
| India | GDP per capita | 1,031 | ||||
| Pakistan | GDP per capita | 1,017 | ||||
| Bangladesh | GDP per capita | 574 | ||||
| Afghanistan | GDP per capita | 486 | ||||
| You will find notes on the data and options to download the table below your results. |
| Shaded cells indicate IMF staff estimates | ||||||
| Country | Subject Descriptor | Units | Scale | Country/Series -specific Notes | 2009 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Austria | GDP, Current Prices | U.S. $$ | Billions |  | 381880 | |
| Belgium | GDP, Current Prices | U.S. $$ | Billions | | 470400 | |
| Cyprus | GDP, current prices | U.S. $$ | Billions | | 23603 | |
| Finland | GDP, Current Prices | U.S. $$ | Billions | | 238128 | |
| France | GDP, Current Prices | U.S. $$ | Billions | | 2675915 | |
| Germany | GDP, current prices | U.S. $$ | Billions | | 3352742 | |
| Greece | GDP, current prices | U.S. $$ | Billions | | 330780 | |
| Ireland | GDP, Current Prices | U.S. $$ | Billions | | 227781 | |
| Italy | GDP, Current Prices | U.S. $$ | Billions | | 2118264 | |
| Luxembourg | GDP, current prices | U.S. $$ | Billions | | 51736 | |
| Malta | GDP, Current Prices | U.S. $$ | Billions | | 7955 | |
| Netherlands | GDP, Current Prices | U.S. $$ | Billions | | 794777 | |
| Portugal | GDP, Current Prices | U.S. $$ | Billions | | 227855 | |
| Slovak Republic | GDP, Current Prices | U.S. $$ | Billions | | 88208 | |
| Slovenia | GDP, current prices | U.S. $$ | Billions | | 49217 | |
| Spain | GDP, current prices | U.S. $$ | Billions | | 1464040 | |
"Various studies, including one by the Federation of Greek Industries last year, have estimated that the government may be losing as much as $30 billion a year to tax evasion — a figure that would have gone a long way to solving its debt problems. "The legitimate question can thus be raised whether tax evasion is at the root of the Greek problem, posing the query as to why countries with a better tax declaration morality, such as Germany, where large tax burdens are shouldered by the citizens and by industry, should suffer the Greek government's financial burdens and bail out Greece, where the money is actually there in the Greek's own communities?
"France and Germany traditionally have been the “motor” of the European Union, but relations between the two countries are badly strained over the Greek debt crisis, which is just the latest example of a new German willingness to resist the demands of Europe and assert its self-interest under Chancellor Angela Merkel....
Germany has insisted that any aid to Greece come as a last resort, and in the loan package arranged on Sunday it insisted that Greece pay a significant penalty in interest rates. This was well within Mrs. Merkel’s guidelines and does not represent a subsidy to Greece, said Thomas Klau of the European Council on Foreign Relations."
"Americans average 25.1 working hours per person in working age per week, but the Germans average 18.6 hours. The average American works 46.2 weeks per year, while the French average 40 weeks per year. Why do western Europeans work so much less than Americans? Recent work argues that these differences result from higher European tax rates, but the vast empirical labor supply literature suggests that tax rates can explain only a small amount of the differences in hours between the U.S. and Europe. Another popular view is that these differences are explained by long-standing European "culture", but Europeans worked more than Americans as late as the 1960s. In this paper, we argue that European labor market regulations, advocated by unions in declining European industries who argued "work less, work all" explain the bulk of the difference between the U.S. and Europe. These policies do not seem to have increased employment, but they may have had a more society-wide influence on leisure patterns because of a social multiplier where the returns to leisure increase as more people are taking longer vacations._______
"Despite slashed budgets and economic woes, Latvia's capital, Riga, is confident of being able to raise the necessary funding for a series of cultural events in 2014, when it is due to become the European capital of culture, its mayor told this website."
"Edge was in Munich in January for DLD 2010 and an Edge/DLD event entitled 'Informavore' — a discussion featuring Frank Schirrmacher, Editor of the Feuilleton and Co-Publisher of Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Andrian Kreye, Feuilleton Editor of Sueddeutsche Zeitung, Munich; and Yale computer science visionary David Gelernter, who, in his 1991 book Mirror Worlds presented what's now called 'cloud computing.'Read the whole thing here.
The intent of the panel was to discuss — for the benefit of a German audience — the import of the recent Frank Schirrmacher interview on Edge entitled 'The Age of the Informavore.' David Gelernter, who predicted the Web, and who first presented the idea of 'the cloud', was the scientist on the panel along with Schirrmacher and Kreye, Feuilleton editors of the two leading German national newspapers, both distinguished intellectuals....Take a look at the photos from the recent Edge annual dinner and you will find the people who are re-writing global culture, and also changing your business, and, your head. What do Evan Williams (Twitter), Larry Page (Google), Tim Berners-Lee (World Wide Web Consortium), Sergey Brin (Google), Bill Joy (Sun), Salar Kamangar (Google), Keith Coleman (Google Gmail), Marissa Mayer (Google), Lori Park (Google), W. Daniel Hillis (Applied Minds), Nathan Myhrvold (Intellectual Ventures), Dave Morin (formerly Facebook), Michael Tchao (Apple iPad), Tony Fadell (Apple/iPod), Jeff Skoll (formerly eBay), Chad Hurley (YouTube), Bill Gates (Microsoft), Jeff Bezos (Amazon) have in common? All are software engineers or scientists.
So what's the point? It's a culture. Call it the algorithmic culture. To get it, you need to be part of it, you need to come out of it. Otherwise, you spend the rest of your life dancing to the tune of other people's code. Just look at Europe where the idea of competition in the Internet space appears to focus on litigation, legislation, regulation, and criminalization. [emphasis added]"
"Web hosts are unfairly exposed all across the EU and two legal changes are needed....Read the whole posting here.
Problem 1: An unreasonable caveat to safe harbour....
Problem 2: We don't know enough about notice and takedown...."
